Member Review Hooker's Angry Letters (1864)

[wausaubob]

Hooker had ability. But when he went to the west, Thomas was essentially running things in Tennessee. McPherson and Schofield were thought of as the future commanders, and Grant needed Sherman for Sherman's obsessive and compulsive expertise in the logistics of movement. Hooker became redundant. It happens to a lot of people.

 

[rbasin]

Didn't Sherman blame McPherson for snake creek? And he did say that Schofield cost him more headaches that all his other commanders combined

 

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

That could well be. Two things can be true at the same time: (1) Sherman was right about Hooker; and (2) Sherman may have fared no better against Lee. My comment was limited to the first, in case I need to clarify. We know about (1). We'll never know about (2).

Well stated, @Belfoured.

 

[Stryker65]

I can't get over the fact he referred to himself as "Fighting Joe" in the first letter. Neither his defeats nor his circumstances could humble him.

The "Fighting Joe" of the Western Theater was Fighting Joe Mower, not Hooker.

Really? From all accounts I've seen, Hooker was quite fond of Thomas. I haven't seen Hooker even blame Thomas for not getting the army of the Tennessee top spot. He was even a pallbearer at Thomas's funeral.

I agree -- nothing in Hooker's letters indicate any anger towards Thomas.

It's funny. Buell, Rosecrans, Hooker. Three guys who could have held some bitterness towards Thomas literally loved him

Agree with this too -- during the Siege of Nashville, Thomas was forced to call for troops from the nearby Department of the Missouri, which was commanded by his erstwhile, exiled commander Rosecrans. Their communications are perfectly civil, and seem almost like letters between friends.

 

[Stryker65]

Didn't Sherman blame McPherson for snake creek? And he did say that Schofield cost him more headaches that all his other commanders combined

Can't see Sherman blaming McPherson for anything -- thought they were best buds.

Schofield I can see happening, although Grant liked him.

 

[Belfoured]

Hooker encountered some very bad luck. He was wounded at Chancellorsville and did not have a strong enough medical officer to get General Hooker to relinquish command. When he got out west, he didn't get along with Thomas, who was almost Sherman's exec, with the young and upcoming McPherson and Schofield, both of whom were preferred by Grant and Sherman. We read Hooker's letters to the radical Senators, but it seems like it was O.O. Howard who was better connected to the abolitionists and better able to understand the former slaves.

Unfortunately, Hooker's track record was muddled. He was, after all, deeply involved in undermining Burnside. He was also something of a narcissist, at one point earning an admonition from Lincoln that in effect said "stop bloviating about becoming a dictator and do your job instead - I'll risk the results if you succeed." It's not absurd to conclude that rather than facing Lee again he created a needless dispute over Harpers Ferry in late June 1863 to get himself removed. IIRC, Smalley also expressed criticism of Hooker refusing to take the field on September 17 despite his wound. Whenever Joe didn't "get along" with somebody, that was rarely just the fault of the other person. The recent Johnson book of essays on ACW generals in the War with Mexico has an interesting take on what Hooker "learned" in that war.

 

[wausaubob]

Unfortunately, Hooker's track record was muddled. He was, after all, deeply involved in undermining Burnside. He was also something of a narcissist, at one point earning an admonition from Lincoln that in effect said "stop bloviating about becoming a dictator and do your job instead - I'll risk the results if you succeed." It's not absurd to conclude that rather than facing Lee again he created a needless dispute over Harpers Ferry in late June 1863 to get himself removed. IIRC, Smalley also expressed criticism of Hooker refusing to take the field on September 17 despite his wound. Whenever Joe didn't "get along" with somebody, that was rarely just the fault of the other person. The recent Johnson book of essays on ACW generals in the War with Mexico has an interesting take on what Hooker "learned" in that war.

I thought about Burnside. With respect to General Hooker, his assembled divisions from different commands performed a valuable task at Lookout Mountain. But then Hooker turned in a report that contained gross exaggerations. Grant read those reports carefully.

 

[wausaubob]

Unfortunately, Hooker's track record was muddled. He was, after all, deeply involved in undermining Burnside. He was also something of a narcissist, at one point earning an admonition from Lincoln that in effect said "stop bloviating about becoming a dictator and do your job instead - I'll risk the results if you succeed." It's not absurd to conclude that rather than facing Lee again he created a needless dispute over Harpers Ferry in late June 1863 to get himself removed. IIRC, Smalley also expressed criticism of Hooker refusing to take the field on September 17 despite his wound. Whenever Joe didn't "get along" with somebody, that was rarely just the fault of the other person. The recent Johnson book of essays on ACW generals in the War with Mexico has an interesting take on what Hooker "learned" in that war.

General Hooker was defeated at Chancellorsville. But the Army of the Potomac still had a battle of Gettysburg potential. The army was not whipped, due to its ability to resupply. I have to wonder if Grant and Meade had a chance to discuss the likelihood that there would be a big battle just across the Rapidan, and the federal army had to move on after the bloodshed. "Keep moving" as Grant was likely to emphasize.

 

[wausaubob]

Hooker's aggression and desire to make a name for himself that he could use to launch a postwar career could be good things. But when he tried to force his way through Ringgold Gap the odds caught up with him. There were numerous unnecessary casualties because the Confederates were well set.

 

[wausaubob]

It seems to me that Hooker lost his head after the battle of Chattanooga. Wasn't it likely that Grant was going to get promoted and would be in control of nearly all subsequent promotions? Comstock and Porter and some of the other younger officers seem to have played the game correctly.

 

[RedRover]

I have to wonder if Grant and Meade had a chance to discuss the likelihood that there would be a big battle just across the Rapidan, and the federal army had to move on after the bloodshed. "Keep moving" as Grant was likely to emphasize.

In March, 1864, General Meade recorded of his first impressions of Lt. Gen. Grant and his plans...

...

Meade shortly after noted in a letter that he appreciated Gen. Grant's ideas, and looked forward to some fighting in the right manner...

The day before advancing, Gen. Meade wrote...

That day he penned a notice to be distributed to the army to steel themselves for the struggle to determine the outcome of the war...

 

[wausaubob]

In March, 1864, General Meade recorded of his first impressions of Lt. Gen. Grant and his plans...

View attachment 546007
...

View attachment 546008

Meade shortly after noted in a letter that he appreciated Gen. Grant's ideas, and looked forward to some fighting in the right manner...

View attachment 546009

View attachment 546010

The day before advancing, Gen. Meade wrote...

View attachment 546011
View attachment 546012

That day he penned a notice to be distributed to the army to steel themselves for the struggle to determine the outcome of the war...

That reads as if General Meade anticipated some very severe battles.

 

[Saint Jude]

I wonder if that stroke was related to his concussion at Chancellorsville, or if it was just the result of hard living?

I think it was due to high blood pressure caused by drinking.

 

[wausaubob]

In his private letters, Gen. Sherman says he knew Hooker very well from their long association in the antebellum army, until Sherman's resignation in the 1850s. He could not see him handling the Army of Potomac well, and so was probably not surprised by the results of the Chancellorsville campaign...

View attachment 544861

On July 29, 1864, Sherman wrote of his personal opinion of Hooker succinctly...

View attachment 544862


In his memoir, Gen. Sherman explains that Gen. Thomas, Hooker's immediate commander in the Atlanta campaign, complained that Hooker was becoming too inclined to "switch off" and do his own thing... then inclined to magnify the effect. Gen. Sherman says after Kennesaw he was forced to confront Hooker on this bad habit, but thinks he was too lenient, as Hooker responded with a sulkiness rather than discipline and propriety...

View attachment 544853
View attachment 544854
View attachment 544855
View attachment 544856
View attachment 544857

Sherman says that he had known Hooker personally and professionally since 1836, and had served actively with him in the antebellum years. Says he was personally satisfied with his services rendered at Chattanooga, and the Atlanta campaign up to the above confrontation at the Kulp House near Kennesaw, when his new sulkiness combined with more breaches of strict military propriety that Sherman had already reproved him for. After Gen. McPherson's death, when passed over for his army command, Hooker's request of relief from command of the 20th Corps was quickly accepted... Though Sherman seems clear that he did not consider Hooker completely incompetent otherwise, and seems inclined to point out his good service rendered in the Battle of Peach Tree Creek particularly.

View attachment 544858

After the Atlanta campaign, during the March to the Sea, the 20th Corps and 14th Corps formed a left wing to Sherman's movements, and the commander of the 20th Corps, Gen. Slocum since Hooker's relief, consequently commanded essentially a separate army, designated eventually the "Army of Georgia." Had Hooker shown some contrition to Sherman after the Kennesaw, perhaps he would have had a opportunity he desired to command an army again before the close of the war.

Hooker was eventually promoted to major general in the regular army upon retirement in October, 1868.

Sherman's description of Hooker's lapses in judgment is very detailed. Its as if Hooker over indulged at times, and when surrounded by friendly subordinates, Hooker forgot about military discipline. Its hard to tell from Sherman's letters, but it seems as if Howard was more professional, a better writer, and more disciplined in following orders. General Howard was also more cautious, and did not incur unnecessary casualties.

 

[RedRover]

Sherman's description of Hooker's lapses in judgment is very detailed. Its as if Hooker over indulged at times, and when surrounded by friendly subordinates, Hooker forgot about military discipline. Its hard to tell from Sherman's letters, but it seems as if Howard was more professional, a better writer, and more disciplined in following orders. General Howard was also more cautious, and did not incur unnecessary casualties.

General Hooker apparently had a bad habit of getting in his own way, by drawing some attention to himself in a way his commanders didn't prefer. For example, even upon being elevated to command of the Army of the Potomac in 1863, President Lincoln as much as warned him that he was being elevated to high command rather in spite of his quirks than because of them...

 

[tony_gunter]

Didn't Sherman blame McPherson for snake creek? And he did say that Schofield cost him more headaches that all his other commanders combined

Sherman was constantly pointing the finger at everyone but himself, for every setback real or imagined.

His saving grace is that he never passed blame on to his commanders.

 

[tony_gunter]

(Highly recommend reading both letters -- they're quite funny)

On December 8, 1864, Major General Joseph Hooker, commander of the Union Army's "Northern Department" (covering Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio) sent a letter to Senator Henry Wilson of Massachusetts, then serving in the United States Senate. In his letter, Hooker poured forth his grievances of how junior officers have been promoted over his head. Thought I should share the letter in full here:
View attachment 544836
View attachment 544837
View attachment 544838
View attachment 544839
View attachment 544840
That same day, Hooker wrote a SECOND letter, this time to the powerful Senator Benjamin F. Wade of Ohio, chairman of the Congressional Committee on the Conduct of the War, with much the same feeling and points:
View attachment 544843
View attachment 544844
View attachment 544845

... Nuff said.

Meridian was worse than a defeat? That's a wild claim for one of the most well-executed raids of the war. Followed by him posing the greatest raid of the war as Sherman running away from Hood.

These messages only serve to confirm Grant and Sherman's opinions about Hooker. On paper one of the best generals of the war, but totally toxic to the team.

 

[rbasin]

Sherman was constantly pointing the finger at everyone but himself, for every setback real or imagined.

His saving grace is that he never passed blame on to his commanders.

Sure he did. He blamed the army of the Cumberland for Kennesaw, McPherson for Snake Creek.

 

[JerryD]

Meridian was worse than a defeat? That's a wild claim for one of the most well-executed raids of the war. Followed by him posing the greatest raid of the war as Sherman running away from Hood.

These messages only serve to confirm Grant and Sherman's opinions about Hooker. On paper one of the best generals of the war, but totally toxic to the team.

Exactly. On paper, its hard to fathom why Sherman would pick Howard over Hooker. But Sherman was putting together a team that had to work together, trust each other, and cooperate with each other. Hooker, while probably an above average general, failed due to his personality traits. And he was not alone in this. Bragg, McClellan, Rosecrans, are D.H. Hill are just a few of the highly regarded generals who failed due to their personality traits and not so much from their ability to lead an army.

Personal interactions and relationships are huge considerations when a general is considering who he can trust. That is why Sherman rose so high. On paper its hard to say he was a better general than many of the generals in the US army. But Grant knew him, trusted him, and knew he could be relied on. So Sherman fared better because of his personality traits. Some here think that is negative, but I think they just don't get how important developing a working team is.

 

[tony_gunter]

Sure he did. He blamed the army of the Cumberland for Kennesaw, McPherson for Snake Creek.

*His commander* i.e. Grant at Shiloh, Halleck for Chickasaw Bayou.